The recent negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia, held on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Kazan, have emerged as a pivotal moment in the diplomatic playbook of both nations. While official statements offered few concrete details, the importance of this dialogue cannot be understated. It signals potential shifts in the protracted conflict between these two South Caucasus neighbors. The central focus of the meeting was the advancement of the peace agenda, covering key topics such as a peace treaty, border delimitation, demarcation, and other matters of mutual interest.
A Breakthrough Amid Diplomatic Stalemate
The mere fact that this meeting took place is an achievement in itself, particularly against the backdrop of recent diplomatic failures. One need only recall the ill-fated July meeting in London between Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev and Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, which was derailed due to Armenia’s last-minute withdrawal. This mishap not only set back the negotiations but also left both sides feeling the weight of a diplomatic deadlock. Furthermore, the cancellation of a planned meeting between the speakers of the two countries' parliaments — Sahiba Gafarova and Alen Simonyan — only exacerbated the sense of mounting tensions. In this light, the Kazan meeting can be seen as a "reset" for the peace process, a much-needed diplomatic revival.
The Real Question: Is This Sustainable?
Yet, the primary question looming over these talks is not merely the resumption of negotiations but whether they will lead to a sustainable peace. On the surface, the involvement of international actors suggests cautious optimism. Recent visits by U.S. representatives and personal letters from President Joe Biden to both Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders point to increased diplomatic pressure. The U.S. seems invested in pushing this dialogue forward, hoping to secure a resolution to the long-standing conflict. But despite these overtures, the reality on the ground remains complex and far from resolved.
At the BRICS summit, Pashinyan revealed that 80% of the peace treaty text has been agreed upon. This statistic might sound promising, but it obscures the fact that the remaining 20% covers highly contentious issues that could unravel the entire agreement. Chief among these is Armenia’s lingering constitutional claim to Karabakh, which remains a serious concern for Azerbaijan. As long as these constitutional ambiguities persist, any peace treaty would be little more than a ceremonial gesture, lacking the teeth to ensure lasting peace.
Border Issues and Fragile Gains
Another thorny issue is the delimitation and demarcation of borders. Azerbaijan has already signed the necessary regulatory frameworks, while Armenia’s parliament has only ratified it in the first reading. One notable breakthrough has been the agreement on the return of four villages in the Gazakh region without external mediation — a rare positive sign in an otherwise tense situation. Despite opposition from Armenian revanchist factions, Pashinyan’s ruling party pushed the measure through parliament, marking a small but significant step forward.
Fragile Successes and Unresolved Risks
However, these diplomatic victories remain fragile at best. Armenia's apparent willingness to ratify a peace treaty could well be a calculated move to buy time rather than a genuine commitment to change. The key risk is that Armenia may be using the current process as a "dress rehearsal" for peace without enacting the constitutional amendments necessary to fully align with the treaty. For Azerbaijan, such a scenario, where critical constitutional issues remain unresolved, is unacceptable.
This situation introduces the very real possibility that even if a peace agreement is signed, it could later be nullified by Armenia’s Constitutional Court. Alternatively, Armenian revanchist forces might seize on the treaty’s inconsistencies with the country’s constitution to push for revisions or outright cancellation in the future. These risks make it clear why Azerbaijan is wary of moving forward without concrete assurances.
The "Stumbling Block" in Future Talks
Given these dynamics, Azerbaijan is likely to steer clear of signing any premature or incomplete political agreements. Baku’s priority is to ensure that any accord is backed by robust legal and institutional guarantees, preventing the possibility of future revisions. This remains the critical "stumbling block" that will shape the next stages of negotiations.
Looking ahead, it’s clear that while the Kazan talks were an important step, they are far from the final destination. A complex and difficult path still lies ahead, one that will require both sides to demonstrate not only diplomatic agility but also firmness in defending their core national interests. For true peace to take hold, both Azerbaijan and Armenia must move beyond political posturing and engage in a meaningful and durable settlement.
Conclusion: Peace or Pause?
The Kazan meeting might offer a glimmer of hope, but whether this marks a genuine shift toward peace or simply a temporary pause in hostilities remains to be seen. While the international community is watching closely, the success of this process ultimately hinges on whether the key unresolved issues — particularly Armenia’s constitutional claims and border questions — can be adequately addressed. For now, the future of peace in the South Caucasus hangs in the balance.
The Role of External Players
External involvement in the peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia plays a complex, dual role. On one side, Western powers—particularly the United States—are pushing for an expedited resolution, seeking to stabilize the South Caucasus through the formalization of a peace treaty. This diplomatic pressure is intended to accelerate negotiations, creating the appearance of progress. However, on the other side, Russia remains a critical mediator and geopolitical player. The Kazan meeting underscored that Russia, with its historical and strategic ties to both nations, still holds considerable sway in the region. The success of negotiations on the Russian platform—compared to similar Western efforts—raises questions about Armenia’s sincerity in aligning with the West and its readiness for genuine cooperation in the peace process.
Baku’s Cautious Approach
Azerbaijan, for its part, is not rushing toward any premature agreements. A hasty peace deal, particularly one built on temporary compromises or unresolved constitutional disputes, could prove destabilizing in the long run. Baku’s approach remains cautious, prioritizing substance over form. The goal is not merely to sign documents but to ensure their full implementation, grounded in the principles of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
The negotiations in Kazan, while a promising step forward, are seen as preliminary. The path to lasting peace will require more than diplomatic maneuvering; it will demand firm commitment to the core interests of both nations. Azerbaijan is acutely aware of this, opting for a patient but resolute diplomatic stance.
The Complexities of the Peace Process
The talks between Azerbaijan and Armenia, centered around a potential peace treaty, continue to be one of the most significant and intricate challenges in the South Caucasus. Despite Azerbaijan's clear victory in the Second Karabakh War and its intent to resolve the conflict within the framework of international law, Armenia—led by Nikol Pashinyan—has been methodically delaying the process. By introducing artificial obstacles and making absurd demands that contradict legal norms, Pashinyan demonstrates a reluctance to acknowledge the legitimacy of Azerbaijan's position.
Azerbaijan’s Constructive Approach vs. Armenia’s Delay Tactics
Azerbaijan has consistently demonstrated its commitment to peace. President Ilham Aliyev has reiterated on numerous occasions that Baku is ready to sign a peace treaty based on the universally recognized principle of territorial integrity. The country seeks a stable and prosperous South Caucasus, where good-neighborly relations can thrive. Yet, this constructive stance meets persistent resistance from Armenia, which refuses to compromise and instead creates new obstacles to meaningful progress.
Yerevan’s delay tactics are exemplified by its insistence on guarantees for the Armenian population in Karabakh—demands that go beyond the norms of international law. Azerbaijan has repeatedly stated that it will protect the rights of all its citizens, including ethnic Armenians, under equal terms. Yet, Armenia continues to politicize this issue, weaponizing it as a pressure point in negotiations.
Artificial Demands and Absurd Conditions
Nikol Pashinyan's unwillingness to engage in real peace-building is evident in Armenia’s ongoing efforts to frame Azerbaijan’s rightful reclamation of territories as “illegal.” This narrative is in direct contradiction to international law and the clear rulings of the UN Security Council, which affirm Azerbaijan’s sovereignty over Karabakh. Pashinyan’s rhetoric serves primarily to create an illusion of political pressure on Baku, rather than fostering genuine dialogue.
Armenia's inconsistent stance is further revealed in its changing positions on key issues, such as border demarcation. Initially, Yerevan signaled readiness to engage in talks, only to later introduce new, unrealistic conditions. This demonstrates a strategy of stalling—not aiming for resolution but creating the appearance of engagement while sidestepping any real commitments.
Geopolitical Maneuvers and Western Influence
One of the major factors enabling Armenia’s stalling tactics is external support, particularly from Western countries. Diplomatic backing from international organizations allows Pashinyan to maintain a more confident posture in negotiations. This is especially evident in his portrayal of Armenia as a "victim" of Azerbaijani aggression, a narrative that conveniently omits the fact that Baku’s positions are aligned with international law.
Western support, however, does not exert the decisive influence Pashinyan might hope for. Most international actors, including key Western powers, recognize Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, limiting Yerevan’s ability to sway the broader geopolitical calculus. Pashinyan's attempts to leverage Western backing often seem more aimed at appeasing his domestic audience than genuinely altering the course of negotiations.
Conclusion: A Delicate Path Forward
The negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia remain fraught with challenges, many of which are manufactured by Armenia’s current leadership. While external actors, from both the West and Russia, are deeply involved, the ultimate success of the peace process depends on the willingness of both nations to engage in good faith. Azerbaijan continues to demonstrate its readiness for peace, guided by international law and a commitment to its territorial sovereignty. Armenia, on the other hand, must decide whether it is truly willing to abandon its delaying tactics and engage in a process that can bring long-term stability to the region.
Until then, the future of peace in the South Caucasus remains precarious, with both sides navigating a complex web of geopolitical interests, domestic pressures, and historical grievances. It will take more than diplomatic gestures to overcome these hurdles—it will take political will, genuine compromise, and a commitment to a shared future.
Pashinyan’s Use of International Platforms
Nikol Pashinyan has strategically leveraged international platforms like the UN, the European Union, and the OSCE to advocate for Armenia’s position, crafting a narrative that paints Azerbaijan as unjust. This approach allows Yerevan to sidestep genuine progress toward conflict resolution, placing the onus on Baku and diverting attention from Armenia’s role in the stalemate. By seeking support from Western allies, Pashinyan seemingly hopes that international backing will pressure Azerbaijan into making concessions.
Yet, in reality, the influence of Western players on the peace process is limited. Most countries recognize Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, which diminishes the impact of Pashinyan’s efforts to gain sympathy on the global stage. His attempts to rally Western support are more tailored to his domestic audience, helping him maintain political credibility at home rather than bringing about meaningful changes in the negotiations.
Double Standards and Diplomatic Maneuvering
Armenia's diplomatic approach is rife with double standards. On the surface, Pashinyan publicly professes a commitment to peace and negotiations. But behind the scenes, his government continues to stall, presenting conditions that are clearly unacceptable to Azerbaijan. These tactics are designed to maintain the status quo, keeping the conflict unresolved rather than moving toward a final settlement.
A clear example of Armenia’s double standard is the issue of rights for Armenians living in Karabakh. Azerbaijan has consistently pledged to ensure the security and equal treatment of all its citizens, including ethnic Armenians. However, Yerevan continues to politicize the issue, using it to challenge Azerbaijan’s sovereignty. This tactic undermines the core principles of the negotiations, turning them into a platform for Armenia to exert political pressure rather than seek a genuine resolution.
Overcoming Obstacles to Peace
The ongoing negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia are riddled with challenges, many of which are artificially constructed by Armenia’s leadership. Pashinyan and his government have shown little genuine interest in pursuing peace. Instead, they have chosen to delay the process by introducing unreasonable demands and erecting new obstacles. While Azerbaijan adheres to the principles of international law, Armenia continues to manipulate both domestic politics and external factors to avoid committing to a peace agreement.
It is clear that achieving lasting peace in the South Caucasus will require more than just willingness from both sides to engage in talks. Armenia must demonstrate the political will to halt its provocative maneuvers and adopt a more constructive approach. The peace process cannot advance while one party is actively blocking progress. In the end, true dialogue and the abandonment of these delaying strategies could lay the groundwork for a durable peace and prosperity in the region.